Google keeps updating their Panda algorithm. One of its roles is to make 'thin' content websites (or URLs) rank lower in the search results.

Google Panda is a change to Google's search results ranking algorithm that was first released in February 2011. The change aimed to lower the rank of "low-quality sites" or "thin sites", and return higher-quality sites near the top of the search results.

I also read this article about how DaniWeb's traffic performance was over taken by Stack Overflow [src].

Note that it would (typically) be wrong to use the canonical link type in these cases, because it’s required that the content is "either duplicative or a superset". If a SO question gets closed as duplicate, the content is typically not identical or a subset. (If OP copies a question, it should be deleted anyway, or edited with correct attribution, in which case it’s, again, not duplicative anymore. Even a single new/different comment or answer would change the duplicative nature.)
– unorFeb 5 '16 at 13:59

12

The questions are usually thick... unless Google can recognize low quality questions already. If this is the case I would ask them to do the voting and closing and deleting from now on.
– TrilarionFeb 5 '16 at 16:58

1 Answer
1

It doesn't, and in my (watch it, N=1) experience Google is backing out of what used to almost seem like a hard-coded preference for showing Stack Overflow results for your searches.

In fact, since quite some weeks, a handful of months at most, I find that Stack Overflow search results are sinking to the bottom of the first Google page, sometimes even being entirely absent. This while I know there used to be Stack Overflow Q&A results for equivalent search queries.

I can imagine the high bounce rate and low finish rate have something to do with this. When I'm researching a certain technology, lately more often than not my search doesn't end at a Stack Overflow page, but at another site, because the first five Stack Overflow hits don't explain anything but instead contain code copy-pasted from another answer or site, which isn't helpful (yes, it's a pet peeve).

The DaniWeb article you refer to, posted in July 2013, contains some of linksto web searches* where they claim the first page is "StackOverflow-ruled" and "DaniWeb is nowhere to be found". Ironically, if you perform those searches now, they are back, and Stack Overflow not quite so.

The same happens when using different browsers, Google accounts and search engines.

*: this was exaggerated somewhat and has been edited. Most linked searches return the same results as back then, but "DaniWeb nowhere to be found in StackOverflow-ruled Google SERPS" is still not true anymore, especially the last part.

For me still the first two Stackoverflow hits usually explain everything I need to know, so maybe my searches are not complex enough. On the other hand programming questions might just naturally need more than one good resource to be answered. Other questions ("give me cute cat pics", ...) might naturally require less.
– TrilarionFeb 5 '16 at 17:02

@CodeCaster if you look at the examples of situational irony in your link you will see there is more to irony than simply something expected not happening. As Ed Byrne points out here m.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg
– Martin SmithFeb 6 '16 at 7:45

3

@Martin OP's question is "Why is Stack Overflow doing so well in search results", and points to a 2.5yo page where is complained that SO is doing so well. This question also is about the "Panda algorithm", an major update to Google's search ranking that's all about this. However, if you look at the results now, it's becoming obvious (in my experience) that Stack Overflow isn't doing that well anymore, disproving both OP's premise and the claims from the site they link to. Isn't it ironic? I'm asking genuinely, I don't use that word too often anyway and may have to update my definition.
– CodeCasterFeb 6 '16 at 9:16

This business about SO dropping off or down in the Google search results isn't my experience at all.
– T.J. CrowderFeb 7 '16 at 8:54

1

@T.J. I should've saved some searches where I noticed this, of course, but I haven't.
– CodeCasterFeb 7 '16 at 9:12